Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

An infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, and static arrangement collapses under gravity?

  1. Jun 2, 2012 #1
    Can anyone explain this to me?


    If we have an infinite amount of balls arranged in a kind of cubic matrix, in an infinite and static space...how the heck would that collapse on itself due to gravity?


    Thanks folks
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 2, 2012 #2
    Re: An infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, and static arrangement collapses under gravi

    It wouldn't - but one slight change in the position of any of the balls would immediate trigger a collapse into lumps. This is because the movement of one ball or create in an imbalance of the gravitational forces acting on the next few balls, causing them to move in the opposite directions. These then alter the movement of the balls near them, and the process continues until the whole setup falls apart.

    I'm guessing you are referring to Einstein's static universe. The problem was the same with your infinite arrangement of balls. If one galaxy has a slight peculiar motion relative to the others, it would trigger a collapse as in the previous scenario.
     
  4. Jun 2, 2012 #3
    Re: An infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, and static arrangement collapses under gravi


    This is all true. It would collapse VERY slowly, though.
     
  5. Jun 3, 2012 #4
    Re: An infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, and static arrangement collapses under gravi

    This is what my intuition tells me.


    This is the quote from Hawking that confused me:

    So, the qualifiers are that the stars must be "roughly uniformly" distributed?

    It seems strange to not further clarify...especially when he says they will "always collapse."
     
  6. Jun 3, 2012 #5
    Re: An infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, and static arrangement collapses under gravi

    If the stars were evenly distributed, they would stay in the arrangement. But, as I explained above, one slight movement would cause the matrix of stars to collapse. So, we can say that one star explodes, and then the rest would undergo the collapse.

    Hawking does have a tendency to do that, especially with the concept of 'imaginary time', that he brings up, but has never explained in any of his books.
     
  7. Jun 3, 2012 #6

    Ken G

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: An infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, and static arrangement collapses under gravi

    No, the whole point that Hawking is talking about is that they would fall together, and quite quickly by cosmological standards. When Hawking says they are roughly uniform, he is not ruling out exactly uniform-- exactly uniform would make his words even more correct, not less so.

    Hawking argues it from the standpoint of Newtonian gravity, where the stars would still fall together if they were static and uniform. But it can also be said using Einstein's general relativity, where again they fall together. Indeed, this is exactly why Einstein originally introduced a "cosmological constant," to allow a static distribution of mass to not fall into itself. The cosmological constant is essentially a pervasive antigravity that would offset the tendency to contract. The problem with it is that it would be unstable-- so only if you had an antigravity term would you have to worry about what happens to perturbations in certain regions. That's why Einstein regarded it as a blunder-- his equations told him the universe was dynamic, but he tried to add to them to make the universe static, and he did not recognize that his final result would never be stable.

    Ironically, we have since discovered we may need the cosmological constant after all, and of similar magnitude, but for completely different reasons (to get the acceleration of the expansion)!
     
  8. Jun 3, 2012 #7
    Re: An infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, and static arrangement collapses under gravi

    How can I make sense of that then?

    Newton's logic seems flawless to me.
     
  9. Jun 3, 2012 #8

    Ken G

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: An infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, and static arrangement collapses under gravi

    I believe what Hawking is referring to is that even in the symmetry of complete homogeneity, you can draw an imaginary sphere around any set of mass, and consider that all the mass outside that sphere will produce no net gravitational force within the sphere. So there will only be a force that contracts the sphere, coming from the sphere. Now, the Newtonian model can't really be completely correct, because it is known to be a wrong model for gravity, but it can get the right answer if you treat the problem this way. But instead of a force that is everywhere toward some arbitrarily chosen point, which obviously makes no sense, you simply get a uniform contraction everywhere. Saying the contraction is uniform means you are not picking out any arbitrary centers, it's like the "expanding balloon" analogy in reverse.

    It really should be done with GR, but you can get pretty far with Newtonian gravity, as long as you do it the way Hawking intimated. What we know for sure is that Einstein understood GR pretty well, and he needed to invoke a cosmological constant (a form of antigravity) to get the universe to be static (though unstable, as I mentioned).
     
  10. Jun 4, 2012 #9
    Re: An infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, and static arrangement collapses under gravi

    Ok, that makes sense.

    Thank you for the reply.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: An infinite, isotropic, homogeneous, and static arrangement collapses under gravity?
  1. Isotropic vs homogeneous (Replies: 15)

Loading...